Date:         Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:51:05 -0700
Reply-To:     Mark Seifert <theburnvictims@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Mark Seifert <theburnvictims@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: main bearing torque
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate your help. Now that I've given it some
thought, I think 22 lbs sort of makes sense. Since this engine doesn't have
main bearing "caps" like linline 4-cyls with cast iron block, it uses the
flat surface of the entire case halves to hold the main bearings in place.
So all the bolts, even the small ones, intrinsically keep everything in
place. So if you torque the main bearing nuts at like 65, and the little
ones at 15, it would probably warp the case or something like that. So I
guess I'll go with 22, although it still doesn't sound tight enough.
-Mark


My Bentley states,  case halves: large 22 FT/lb,   small 15 ft/lb
  sound wrong to me also....  22 ft/lb is nothing...
            Eric                   86-VW4x4
            vw4x4@fyi.net          86-SS Syncro
            Pittsburgh, PA USA     1936-Chrysler
                                   92-Jetta GWC
            www.fyi.net/~vw4x4/vw4x4.htm

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Mark Seifert wrote:

>What is the torque spec for the main bearings on a 2.1 waterboxer(the 4 cap
>nuts inside the water jacket, and the two nuts on the outside?) The manual
>that I have (NOT Bentley) says 22 lbs/ft. This doesn't seem like it's tight
>enough. I expect to receive ridicule for trying to rebuild a waterboxer
>without the Bentley manual, but I've made it this far without it...so if
>anyone could take the time to look it up for me, I would greatly appreciate
>it.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/